Virginia V. Sebelius Essay

1236 Words 5 Pages
Health care has been a much need but problematic institution for the United States over the last several decades. Particularly private companies have been the main cause of high premiums and the denial of coverage for the previously ill. In attempts to remedy these issues congress in conjunction with the President of the United States Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The PPACA is a federal state that focused on the reformation of the private health insurance market, provide better coverage for those with existing conditions, and improve the conditions of Medicare. Within this statue there is the section 1501 mandate, the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision, which requires every citizen, besides …show more content…
As part of the relief Virginia request a prohibitory injunctive relief barring the United State from enforcing the mandate within its borders. The state wishes for the court to find the mandate for it surpasses the limits of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause. The state also proposes that requiring the citizens that exist within its boundaries to purchase a good or service from a private vendor is out of the realm of congressional powers allotted by the commerce clause. The clause gives congress the power to regulate economic activity. However, ones refusal would constitute inactivity. Congress does not have the power to regulate or tax such an economic position. Thirdly, the Plaintiff argues against the wording of the provision. The minimal coverage tax is said to be mischaracterized. In actuality the tax is a penalty for a refusal of participation. In order for Congress to garner money for an economic inactivity it must be viewed as a penalty rather than a tax. Finally, the Commonwealth believes that the PPACA section 1501 provision is in direct conflict of the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act. Allowing such a conflict to continue would be an unlawful exercise of police powers. It would violate state sovereignty because it would impede on the State government. Lastly allowing such a law to be enforced would offend against the State’s tenth amendment rights.
To counter the plaintiff argument against the Patient Protection and
Open Document